Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

fat acceptance movement

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    But it is not wrong to be a "weightist". It's both natural and healthy to do so.
    Doesn't that depend on the individual persons version of "weightist"?

    There are people out there who would assume that a woman of average build, 5'6", and 110 lbs is "healthier" than a similar average build woman, same height at 150 lbs. Because they think skinny = healthy.
    Statistically, in that instance the 110lb woman is the unhealthy one, as she would be below the normal weight range according to BMI. And low weight individuals have nearly as many health problems as a group as the obese group does.
    The 150lb woman may look a bit soft, and is near the top of the normal weight range, but is probably the healthiest.

    Culture and media is skewing "weightist" views to favor those with very low body fat, or who are under weight... this is NOT the healthiest segment of our society. And I'd argue that it's not very natural that our preferences are skewed that way either.

    That said... I'm not arguing for people to STAY heavy.
    But I do understand a bit of the "love thyself" message behind the fat acceptance words.
    IMO a heavy person needs a good deal of self love in order to make the changes necessary to stick to dietary and lifestyle changes long term, which is what it takes to lose weight and keep it off.
    Sometimes fat loss is SLOW and difficult, and loving yourself AS YOU ARE makes it easier to see the positive no matter how little the increments are.
    Self loathing, or only loving the idea of a smaller you, leads to crash and burn cycles of loss and gain.(Or unhealthy levels of struggle and obsession without results... sound familiar Choco? I think I've read that post from even YOU.)
    For many obese people this leads to eventually giving up completely. Not healthy at all...
    Last edited by cori93437; 06-14-2012, 10:33 PM.
    “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
    ~Friedrich Nietzsche
    And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
      I haven't read much of this thread, but this post caught my eye. I don't know what the background of it is, but I'm going to comment on it anyway because I have strong feelings about it.

      How you look to the world does overshadow your accomplishments on a visceral level.

      You are human. As a human, your strongest sense is your sight. It's your primary method of perception. Evolution has built you to judge on looks. Looks are the very foundation of survival. There is a reason why we are more naturally attracted to thin people that overweight people. Being lean is a far better indicator of health, and as a species that for 98% of our history have not had food readily available, it's in our best interest to procreate with those that have strong genetics - these people will be leaner and more attractive, and therefore probably healthier.

      To believe in The Primal Blueprint but then bash someone for valuing thinner people more than overweight people is contradictory. To embrace nature, you have to accept that thin people will always be valued higher than overweight people in society because that's our basic survival instincts are work. Thinner people are more likely to catch food, less likely to be eaten for food, better able to climb trees and get fruit, they'll be able to walk longer distances for travel, they'll be less prone to injury or disease...the list goes on and on. This is just a fact of nature, and to deny that fact is ignorant.

      I'm all for tolerance, and I'd never advocate tearing someone down simply because of their looks. Always judge someone by their character first. But it is not wrong to be a "weightist". It's both natural and healthy to do so.
      is this going along the same lines of thinking that say 'everyone can eat 3 lbs of potatoes a day because *I* can eat 3 lbs of potatoes a day'?

      because maybe i'm remembering wrongily, but visual cues for health and fertility change about every 50 years or so. because now it's skinny. 60 years ago it was marilynesque curvy, in the 20s it was tomboyishly curveless, before then it was wasp waisted corsets, before that it was bustles (butt illusions) the size of a volkswagon, before that it was white powder and ridiculous wigs. and that's just sticking with north america and europe

      i mean even now across the world at least one country has the status quo as the bigger the better for their women

      to bash someone for calling overweight people landwhales is perfectly fine in my world. if they want to call me or other people like me landwhales well then, i guess i'll happily whip out my handy dandy insult notebook and start off sweet with just 'dumbass'

      because for some reason, some people are just dumb enough to think their opinion on how everyone should look or what everyone should like is cause enough for assholery

      also, this is just me scratching my head here, but what about all the people who like fat partners? or very fat partners? or partners with very large legs and hips?

      because for every condescending remark you make, as if i don't live in the real world too, i can remark that what YOU like is not what EVERYONE likes. do i really have to say that? that everyone likes different things?

      the primal blueprint is about health, btw. if weightloss happens then great
      beautiful
      yeah you are

      Baby if you time travel back far enough you can avoid that work because the dust won't be there. You're too pretty to be working that hard.
      lol

      Comment


      • It is debatable that "thin people have always been valued higher than overweight people. . ." There is plenty of art-evidence that would seem to indicate to the contrary.

        Likewise, it is not contradictory to the Primal Blueprint to value people equally, regardless of their size, shape, age, sex, race, etc. The primal blueprint is simply a methodology within the paleo/ancestral styles of diets. It doesn't categorize or evaluate individual people in terms of merit. It simply puts forth a concept about diet.

        That concept helps people achieve a healthy weight. People will define this under different terms -- and as such will decide which goals to pursue, when they are reached, and how to utilize the primal blueprint to maintain health as they understand it, and the weight that they want to maintain.

        this may include choosing to stay "fat" by social standards, but within healthy ranges overall, or where a person feels good. There's nothing wrong with making this decision. It doesn't mean the person is less valuable -- as a human being.

        It literally just means that they are more heavy than the modern construct of beauty -- which values a dangerous level of 'thinness' in my opinion. Likewise, I often find that subcultures -- like this forum -- might value a certain measure of leanness that, for many people, may not be truly accessible or easy to maintain.

        For myself, my body naturally dropped from an easy-to-maintain on a vegetrian diet 20-22% body fat to an easy-to-maintain on the primal diet 18-20% body fat. But, by this culture's standards, I'm not putting in enough effort if I'm not reaching for 15%.

        The reality is, I'm not really interested in getting to 15%. I know what it would take. 1. far more focus on exercise than I can currently manage; 2. far more restriction on my PB diet (and/or changing ratios, etc).

        Some might say "but that's not that hard!" But it is -- becuase I don't want to do it and I don't see any need to. Eating the way that I do now, and moving the way that i do not, I don'T have to think about my weight or body fat percentage at all. My life is easy and comfortable. I go to work (currently a bit over-worked), i have fun with my family, I eat delicious food, I have fun with friends (in environments where non-primal food is and sometimes I have a bit), and I love to do my yoga practice and my parkour practice (and when I can get to it, derby).

        It is simple, relaxing, fun.

        The idea of trying to "get to that magic number that the culture of MDA values!" just seems like completely needless stress.

        And yet, by that standard I'm "fat." Right?

        Anyway, all I'm saying is that if another person decides that moving from 30% body fat down to 25% body fat is "all good" and they feel that having a regular, normal, happy, balanced maintenance primal lifestyle (rather than being in the specific mode to loose weight), then why not just let them be? why not let them decide that this body fat percentage is great?

        Prticularly for a woman? Honestly?

        Because there's so much stupid pressure on all of us already (guys and gals), and ultimately, our body fat percentage doesn't determine our inherent value as human beings. It's just another number, and another label.
        Last edited by zoebird; 06-14-2012, 10:03 PM.

        Comment


        • Bloodorchid and Zoebird...
          You two should both take a bow.
          You deserve frantic crowds golfclapping!
          “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
          ~Friedrich Nietzsche
          And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by bloodorchid View Post
            poor spacey, no one understands you!
            Personally I could G A F!

            As for the you don't do what I do comments don't make assumptions about me, my work and responsibilities

            If you don't find time to eat and exercise right you will sooner or later find time to see the doctor and pick up your meds

            Ignorance is NO excuse everyone in the UK is aware about eating healthily albeit with wholegrains but the 5 a day message is everywhere some don't eat 5 a year!

            Comment


            • I don't think people the size of Fat Acceptance people were ever revered as beauties. The "old fat" was the woman with a small belly and larger hips/thighs. They were shapely, but soft, and not blob shaped with rolls of fat. Most of the time, people are not judging the "old fat" to be unhealthy/bad/unattractive.

              Now, our new standard for beauty is thin with big boobs, unattainable for most without an airbrush.... even models. However, women who don't fit that standard are very acceptable as long as they aren't blobby with rolls of fat. Some try and get there, and honestly, it would be better for their health if they just accepted their body with some fat on the hips and thighs.

              I feel like it should be relatively easy to eliminate the blob/fat rolls, and I think it is easy enough to diet to "old fat" for most people, but damn it is hard to go from "old fat" to something better. And unfortunately, I feel like for some people, especially women who have dieted from a young age, it is next to impossible to even get from blob to "old fat". Just to stay at 200-210 lbsfor me- just to maintain.... required hours of exercise a week and careful monitoring of diet. One injury, or an inability to cook or watch calories and I'd have been 300 lbs. like that.

              http://maggiesfeast.wordpress.com/
              Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
                For most of recorded history being fat was a sign of health and social status. Thin is fashionable in our culture. It is not a universal truth for the human species.
                No, having an extra 10-15 lbs could be considered "healthy" because you'd be more likely to survive the winter. That I understanding, and if you want to make the argument that "relatively lean" is healthier than "ripped" I just might support you. Being "fat" was never a sign of health, which is made clear by modern science.
                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post

                  Even Primal people have trouble sticking to it, and still for many of us it isn't exactly easy to lose the weight even on primal. The last two months I have been less focused and maintained, which makes me happy.... but I need to comply pretty tightly to lose pounds which is hard when life intervenes. It's not so much "ooo McDonalds and pizza"... more like "oh, I want a drink with friends" or "shoot, no time to lift" or just eating a bit too much primal foods because I'm tired of measuring and carefully balancing...
                  I was vegetarian for 6 years (one of which was vegan). I did 6 months as a raw foodist (not vegetarian, ate many forms of fermented meats) and I did VLC and several other diets before going paleo. I find the Primal Blueprint by far to be the easiest to stick to. Yes, there was an adjustment period. I still want a big plate of nachos occasionally, but I choose not to eat it. At this time, I'm down 70 pounds (with a 10 pound gain in hard mass), and I find, as long as I always make time for sprints and workouts, that even if I drink in the evening with friends, I recover REALLY FAST.

                  Not saying this is true for everyone, but it is what I find.

                  Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
                  So I get it when people don't believe primal will work for them- they've been failed again and again by many different diet plans. Why should they trust it is any better than veganism, south beach or Jenny Craig? Why should they ditch olive oil for coconut oil? You can find evidence for and against anything. And honestly, this forum.... is discouraging on how much people complicate this way of life. OK, take iodine, until your hair falls out, then sit in ice water, NEVER EAT FRUIT, eat coffee blended with butter, OMG DON'T JOG but do tabata sprints.... SUGAR KILLS, live a little have some haagen das, and while you are at it, eat a pizza, NO NUTS EVER but here is a recipe for a cupcake that has 800 calories of almonds in it, but that apple is what makes you fat.....
                  I find that I don't discuss what lifestyle I've chosen to live. I also try to never call it a diet, and prefer lifestyle. What I found is that everyone wants to discuss it. I blow it off and make funny comments like "I'm not actually Jerry, I'm a pod person" or some such things. It occasionally irritates people, but what I found is that when I finally start divulging what I've been doing, they are very receptive. The first thing I share, and what I think is likely the biggest part of everything Mark lays out is that I point out that I eat no sugar. None at all. This is the one thing that I stick 100% to. YEs, I eat naturally occurring sugar in tomatoes and apples, but no sweeteners or products with sweeteners added. When they insist that can't be the only thing I'm doing, I agree but insist that is a good place to start.

                  Every wants what you are unwilling to give freely.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by cori93437 View Post
                    Doesn't that depend on the individual persons version of "weightist"?

                    There are people out there who would assume that a woman of average build, 5'6", and 110 lbs is "healthier" than a similar average build woman, same height at 150 lbs. Because they think skinny = healthy.
                    Statistically, in that instance the 110lb woman is the unhealthy one, as she would be below the normal weight range according to BMI. And low weight individuals have nearly as many health problems as a group as the obese group does.
                    The 150lb woman may look a bit soft, and is near the top of the normal weight range, but is probably the healthiest.

                    Culture and media is skewing "weightist" views to favor those with very low body fat, or who are under weight... this is NOT the healthiest segment of our society. And I'd argue that it's not very natural that our preferences are skewed that way either.

                    That said... I'm not arguing for people to STAY heavy.
                    But I do understand a bit of the "love thyself" message behind the fat acceptance words.
                    IMO a heavy person needs a good deal of self love in order to make the changes necessary to stick to dietary and lifestyle changes long term, which is what it takes to lose weight and keep it off.
                    Sometimes fat loss is SLOW and difficult, and loving yourself AS YOU ARE makes it easier to see the positive no matter how little the increments are.
                    Self loathing, or only loving the idea of a smaller you, leads to crash and burn cycles of loss and gain.(Or unhealthy levels of struggle and obsession without results... sound familiar Choco? I think I've read that post from even YOU.)
                    For many obese people this leads to eventually giving up completely. Not healthy at all...
                    A female that is 5'6" and 150 lbs probably isn't fat. That might be slightly overweight, but it's not necessarily unhealthy. You can easily be that weight eating primally on high fat. It would depend how that weight is distributed. If that 150 lb person is active, lifts some heavy things every now and than and is solid, that weight could look pretty good. IF that person is completely sedentary, has a poor diet and all the extra weight is body fat, well, that's not so good. For that height, optimal weight is probably more like 130 lbs, right in the middle of your range. There is a lot more to health than weight.
                    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by bloodorchid View Post
                      is this going along the same lines of thinking that say 'everyone can eat 3 lbs of potatoes a day because *I* can eat 3 lbs of potatoes a day'?

                      because maybe i'm remembering wrongily, but visual cues for health and fertility change about every 50 years or so. because now it's skinny. 60 years ago it was marilynesque curvy, in the 20s it was tomboyishly curveless, before then it was wasp waisted corsets, before that it was bustles (butt illusions) the size of a volkswagon, before that it was white powder and ridiculous wigs. and that's just sticking with north america and europe

                      i mean even now across the world at least one country has the status quo as the bigger the better for their women

                      to bash someone for calling overweight people landwhales is perfectly fine in my world. if they want to call me or other people like me landwhales well then, i guess i'll happily whip out my handy dandy insult notebook and start off sweet with just 'dumbass'

                      because for some reason, some people are just dumb enough to think their opinion on how everyone should look or what everyone should like is cause enough for assholery

                      also, this is just me scratching my head here, but what about all the people who like fat partners? or very fat partners? or partners with very large legs and hips?

                      because for every condescending remark you make, as if i don't live in the real world too, i can remark that what YOU like is not what EVERYONE likes. do i really have to say that? that everyone likes different things?

                      the primal blueprint is about health, btw. if weightloss happens then great
                      What you're alluding to is fashion drilled into your head by the media. People 100,000 years ago weren't wearing corsets. None of this makes any sense. There are always outliers that have a skewed perception. There is a reason why the people that are attracted to the very obese are a tiny minority - there was probably something that occurred in their past that lead them down that path. It's definitely not a typical natural attraction for sure.

                      Exactly what in my statement is condescending? You may be offended by natural human attraction, but I'm not. If you want to make decisions based on emotion, go for it. I prefer to be realistic.
                      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                      Comment


                      • We may, perhaps, never be rid of obesity as we may never be rid of congenital heart defects or cancer or what have you. To accept these things, though, is folly. Lean is a more optimal expression of the human phenotype than obese.

                        The problem with this 'movement' is the very same problem with all leftist movements. It begins innocently, with an emotional plee to increase acceptance and tolerance of a newly defined 'oppressed class'. News articles, scholarly discourses, a Netflix documentary, perhaps a TED talk...and the empathy button of politically active women is pushed and before you know it, the movement is hijacked entirely by power agendas.

                        The attempt to change your natural bias against obesity will be multi-faceted, as usual. There will be legislation to change your conduct, and educational attempts to tinker with your childrens' minds from a young age. Subtle messages in coloring books and children's TV shows. On women's talk shows, it will become taboo to applaud or congratulate someone for losing weight, as this 'might offend our large friends'. Airlines will no longer be permitted to charge extra for obese passengers. And so on.

                        The root problem is that, oftentimes, people don't have a very deep well of personal power to draw from. An infant, incapable of feeding itself or providing it's own needs in any way will do what it can do...cry and signal others to see to it's needs. 'Movements' for 'oppressed classes' consist mostly of people who cannot find it within themselves to accept or change themselves and so cry to society to do all of the accepting for them.
                        Last edited by Nicator; 06-15-2012, 05:41 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by spacey47 View Post
                          As for the you don't do what I do comments don't make assumptions about me, my work and responsibilities.
                          So are you saying you DO walk 15-20 miles each day in direct sunlight in 45C weather... in London???

                          I'm only making assumptions because what you're implying is ridiculous and you haven't stated otherwise.

                          It's called "empathy", along with the knowledge that everyone's lives do not work the exact same way yours does. And no, I'm not lashing out in defense of my obesity. I'm only 15 pounds over my ideal weight right now.

                          I just hate the whole "I can do it [at this one point in my life under my exact circumstances] so everyone else [under completely different circumstances] can too, and if you can't, you're just not trying hard enough" attitude.
                          Durp.

                          Comment


                          • A female that is 5'6" and 150 lbs probably isn't fat. That might be slightly overweight, but it's not necessarily unhealthy. You can easily be that weight eating primally on high fat. It would depend how that weight is distributed. If that 150 lb person is active, lifts some heavy things every now and than and is solid, that weight could look pretty good. IF that person is completely sedentary, has a poor diet and all the extra weight is body fat, well, that's not so good. For that height, optimal weight is probably more like 130 lbs, right in the middle of your range. There is a lot more to health than weight.
                            The problem is that getting solid bit. It is just hellishly hard to look firm when fat coats up even larger muscles. The huge problem that women face trying to become fit is with being programmed to carry more fat, while the muscle are not growing as big as men's. Our 'good' fat % is in excess of 20%. A man at 20% looks pudgy even if he has huge upper body muscle. So does a woman, only she doesn't have the structure to pop out from under that fat showing her athleticism even if she lifts heavy. And the lower body is a nightmare. That's why the whole concept of 'toning up' is so laughable for women. It leads to the starvation in the attempts to remove the fat and get some firmness, while most muscle is lost in the process.

                            If you have ever seen an advertisement for something like Insanity Workouts, you can see how men look great and muscular in their 'afters', and women look like dry fish. And those are most likely the fit individuals that were paid to go fat and then do workouts and get back into shape quick using the muscle memory.

                            IF was supposed to provide a miracle cure for this phenomenon, but in my experience, it is, unfortunately, not effective.
                            Last edited by Leida; 06-15-2012, 06:07 AM.
                            My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
                            When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

                            Comment


                            • What I don't like is how it's dumbing the culture down ie with things like the Biggest Losers having to exercise 2 hours a day and all this nonsense. There are elements of the large people culture that are inhumane imo.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Leida View Post
                                The problem is that getting solid bit. It is just hellishly hard to look firm when fat coats up even larger muscles. The huge problem that women face trying to become fit is with being programmed to carry more fat, while the muscle are not growing as big as men's. Our 'good' fat % is in excess of 20%. A man at 20% looks pudgy even if he has huge upper body muscle. So does a woman, only she doesn't have the structure to pop out from under that fat showing her athleticism even if she lifts heavy. And the lower body is a nightmare. That's why the whole concept of 'toning up' is so laughable for women. It leads to the starvation in the attempts to remove the fat and get some firmness, while most muscle is lost in the process.

                                If you have ever seen an advertisement for something like Insanity Workouts, you can see how men look great and muscular in their 'afters', and women look like dry fish. And those are most likely the fit individuals that were paid to go fat and then do workouts and get back into shape quick using the muscle memory.

                                IF was supposed to provide a miracle cure for this phenomenon, but in my experience, it is, unfortunately, not effective.
                                I just read an interesting article on Free The Animal ("No One's Power But Our Own...") that opened with a discussion about IF. Apparently the IF studies that have been referenced here on MDA specifically say that a lot of the improvements were seen ONLY in men. For women, there was no improvement in insulin sensitivity and a NEGATIVE effect on glucose tolerance! Apparently the great majority of studies are only done on men, and the results can be totally different for women. I always figured it would be about the same, because we're all human beings, right? But no, it's just not the case. So the next time some guy goes on and on about how he eats 80-85% primal and effortlessly dropped to 15% BF, and you're wondering why you're eating 95% and stuck at 25% BF ... well, you two are more different than you know. What works for one gender does NOT necessarily work for the other - - and can even be detrimental. How interesting.

                                Personally, I'm 140 lbs but stuck at ~25% BF. I would REALLY like to get down to more like 20%, but eating primal for 9 solid months has not changed it by even 1% (or 1 inch, or 1 lb, however you want to measure!). This is why I have a lot of empathy for women who are carrying 50 or 100 lbs extra weight. Even going primal is NO guarantee that you're going to lose weight. And no, it does not mean you're "doing it wrong" - - at least according to the "rules" we know now. But maybe, just maybe, a lot of those "rules" are right for men but wrong for women ... and maybe, just maybe, a little higher BF % is where we're SUPPOSED to be. I'm not saying 40%, but 25%? Maybe.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X